Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Propensio Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr R financed spray foam insulation installation via a fixed sum loan with Propensio and subsequently made a Section 75 claim after a RICS surveyor identified installation defects including lack of proper ventilation and an Air and Water/Vapour Control Layer. Propensio rejected the claim, arguing the report showed no significant defects or damage. The ombudsman found that while the report identified some non-compliant elements, it did not provide sufficient certainty of breach of contract, as the foam was applied to industry standards with good attachment and correct depth, and moisture readings were consistent with normal winter condensation patterns. The surveyor's recommendation for removal was based on general mortgage lending concerns rather than evidence of structural damage, and no misrepresentation was found. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while the surveyor's report identified some installation defects (lack of AVCL, blocked ventilation), it did not provide sufficient certainty of breach of contract. The report acknowledged the spray foam was applied to industry accepted standards with good attachment and correct depth. The moisture readings were consistent with normal winter condensation patterns expected to evaporate in summer, as predicted by the Condensation Risk Assessment. The surveyor's recommendation for removal was based on general mortgage lending concerns rather than specific evidence of structural damage or defects caused by poor installation. No misrepresentation was found as P carried out the correct pre-installation assessment and the RPSA had retracted its initial guidance against spray foam before Mr R's 2024 purchase.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website